The folly of "clear and hold"

Juan Cole has an excellent post about the president's "clear and hold" escalation strategy.

Last night the president told Americans that we were fighting against Al Qaeda in Baghdad. In fact, that's largely a presidential fantasy. The problem is not that Al Qaeda is thwarting the US occupation of Iraq. The problem is the ongoing civil war.

Prof. Cole writes:

The answer to "al-Qaeda's" occupation of neighborhoods in Baghdad and the cities of al-Anbar is then, Bush says, to send in more US troops to "clear and hold" these neighborhoods.

But is that really the big problem in Iraq? Bush is thinking in terms of a conventional war, where armies fight to hold territory. But if a nimble guerrilla group can come out at night and set off a bomb at the base of a large tenement building in a Shiite neighborhood, they can keep the sectarian civil war going. They work by provoking reprisals. They like to hold territory if they can. But as we saw with Fallujah and Tal Afar, if they cannot they just scatter and blow things up elsewhere.

And the main problem is not "al-Qaeda," which is small and probably not that important, and anyway is not really Bin Laden's al-Qaeda. They are just Salafi jihadis who appropriated the name. When their leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed, it didn't cause the insurgency to miss a beat. Conclusion: "al-Qaeda" is not central to the struggle. Izzat Ibrahim Duri and the Baath Party are probably the center of gravity of the resistance.

If the US locks down Baghdad, provocateurs will resume the cycle of violence elsewhere.

James Ridgeway thinks that the latest escalation is window-dressing. He thinks Bush is hoping for some quick widley-televised counterinsurgency "victories" so that he can open negotiations:

So, it's quite possible that Bush will plunge into a counterinsurgency operation in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, and then amidst mass civilian carnage, declare victory and announce negotiations. Sooner or later there will have to be negotiations, and this may be his ploy.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the escalation as a prelude to any flashy victories that would serve as a pretext for negotiations. I don't think Bush wants to negotiate. I think he just wants to run down the clock and pass the whole mess on to his successor.

Comments

[Doyle Saylor]

The news from the BBC reports this morning the U.S. military invaded and seized the Iran Consulate in Kurdish Iraq territory. This is usually in international terms an act of war. Therefore Bush is immediately trying to provoke a war or see how far they can push Iran to retaliate.

The military detained six diplomats. This is could lead very quickly to a regional war in which thousands of Americans can die very quickly from missile exchanges. And Iran could be nuked.
thanks,
Doyle

[Sven]

I think part of the "run out the clock" strategy is a delaying action against Congress taking back the gains in executive authority. Thus the timing of the Big Speech to coincide with the opening of the 110th.

If all the Dems can muster are non-binding resolutions on troop levels, I'd say that strategy is pretty damn effective.

Also check out Helena Cobban on what looks like a resurrection of the Phoenix Program (re Bush's "too many restrictions" crack). Gen. Mr. Rogers Petraeus, my ass.

[togolosh]

If the insurgents are smart they'll wait for the first phase of the deployment, and then once there are US troops scattered in little outposts all over Bhagdad they'll concentrate all their forces on one of them and have a decent chance of overunning it.

[MinorRipper]

I don't know about you, but I think I trust the findings and suggestions of the Iraq Study Group more than I do George W. Bush. Two more years.
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

[bushbaptist]

As Doyle Saylor puts it: it'an act of war. An embassy is part of the territory of the country it represents, therefore an attack on an Iranian Embassy id an attack on Iran. I welcome the comment from Tehran that they would seek redress through diplomatic channels.
You can not use a standing army against guerrillas without causing major damage to the civillian population.
It's infantile to cry cowardice when the guerillas appear from their civillian hideouts and strike then melt back into the population again. They don't have the technology to take on a standing army but can and do create devastating mayhem amongst everyone.